|
johnasavoia posted:I think he's fine bro. Yeah, you're right. Serves me right to read too quickly. I've read that a lot of the Noritsu machines that do 35mm are designed to do 120 too, you just have to find a store with employees competent enough to do it. Never actually tested this theory though. Anyways, on the topic of C-41, how are those Jobo machines like the ATL-1500?
|
#
?
May 7, 2009 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
Making prints from a scanner just about negates the need to have prints made, so processing C41 is starting to look more practical all the time. The process is pretty simple, presoak, develop, bleach, fix, or blix, stabiliser, hang and dry. But that temp and time is very critical. I used to do E6 all the time, but I had access to tempered water and a wet sink. Now I have 1 bathroom. I need to figure out a temperature bath. I never had a motorised processor, just standard tanks and reels.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2009 05:53
|
|
|
  I know I shouldn't be this happy about it but I am.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2009 10:20
|
|
|
Cryhavoc posted:
Critique aside, what was this shot on? I want to say Velvia 50.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2009 10:50
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:You can find deals out there from time to time. I got essentially the same camera he has (Calumet 4x5) on ebay for $80. All it needed was film holder(s), a lens, and a lens board. Ended up reselling it locally for $80 because I didn't have time to get into it. I wish, I've been looking for years now - and while I've accumulated a mass (almost 30 I think now) of old 35mm and MF cameras I've yet to come across a 4x5 for a nice price.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2009 13:46
|
|
|
Lambster Bisque posted:I wish, I've been looking for years now - and while I've accumulated a mass (almost 30 I think now) of old 35mm and MF cameras I've yet to come across a 4x5 for a nice price. I guess it depends on what you consider a nice price... I don't think they're that bad; the thing that turned me off was the cost of film/developing (especially E-6). Obviously you don't shoot as much with an LF camera as you do in 35mm or even MF, but it definitely would constrain how often I shoot and get things developed.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2009 14:47
|
|
|
I have been tempted to do my own colour dev. I can pick up something like a Jobo CPE2 for about £100 ($150) 2nd hand, which is tempting. Has anybody had good success with a big tub of water, two taps and a thermometer?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2009 15:08
|
|
|
pwn posted:Usually I wouldn't go along with centering the subject, however in the second photo it works. The spotlight effect and triumphant arm-thrusting gives a "center of the universe" vibe. Besides that, the saturation is such that it looks like you went way overboard with the Topaz adjust. The colour in both photos has been pushed to the point that they look like cartoons. I also don't care for the word balloon gimmick. I don't feel he should have to explain his art to anybody.  (So when do we get to see results?)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2009 15:48
|
|
|
Uuuum, results when I can figure out how to use the enlarger at uni, or when I find/cop a decent film-capable scanner!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2009 20:53
|
|
|
Beware, all ye lured by the siren song of Diafine, sweet though it may be, weak in the head it will make ye. Not that I don't still love it, but be warned, it does make you lazy! Over the past year I've used Diafine for ~75% of my film. And by and large, I've loved it; through the voodoo of compensating development it not only saves poorly exposed images, but lets me shoot TriX anywhere from EI 400 to 1600 (well, I've seen people go as high as 6400, but in real terms it delivers nearly identical results from 400 to 1600). Now, this has it's price, it gives you a very flat negative, and with some films, it makes for some pretty ugly grain and tonality. But that's not why I started typing, it's just an excuse for me screwing up today. For some reason, I decided it would be a good idea to develop a roll of APX 400 with a roll of TriX... in HC-110. I realized my mistake only after pouring the developer in. Now, I only knew the time (roughly) for the TX (~7 minutes), but based on my experience with APX I guesstimated it would require roughly 5:30-6 minutes and decided to compromise at about 6:30. And guess what? It mostly worked out, a testament to the flexibility of B/W film. Here are some samples from both rolls: APX: One Two TX: One Two tl;dr- If you feel the need to guess your times, as long as they're within a pretty reasonable distance from optimal, it'll be fine. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 02:27 on May 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2009 02:23
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:Making prints from a scanner just about negates the need to have prints made, so processing C41 is starting to look more practical all the time. The process is pretty simple, presoak, develop, bleach, fix, or blix, stabiliser, hang and dry. But that temp and time is very critical. How do you find out if a place uses a machine that makes a scan or wetprints? Because the few rolls of C41 I've taken in the last year (drop off booth development/CVS) have printed like garbage and like they were from over sharpened jpeg's
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2009 02:50
|
|
|
You could, you know, ask them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2009 02:52
|
|
|
Xtol is da shiznit, bitch.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You could, you know, ask them. There is CVS where I got a blank stare, then I tried dropping off in at some of those Kodak booths. If it was film I cared about there is a real lab in town, but forget $12 to develop a roll of c41 with proof sized prints when I just want to play with junk film. Edit: It was $12 for 120 with proofs, $15 for 35mm roll of 36 Jahoodie fucked around with this message at 04:19 on May 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2009 04:12
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:There is CVS where I got a blank stare, then I tried dropping off in at some of those Kodak booths. A blank stare is what I'd expect from the average minilab gnome. Negatives go in one side, prints come out the other. I treat the prints I get from Wal Mart as contacts and know that if I want good results I need to run them through the scanner anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2009 06:12
|
|
|
My gname is Gnomad and I am a cameraholic. It wasn't so bad, except that the last month or so it's gotten compleatly out of hand. It kind of snowballed after I got the A200 and started collecting Minolta glass. It started with a 3000i that yielded a 50mm 1.7, then a QTsi that came with a Quantary 100-300. I fished a 7000i out of the eBay for the 35-70 f4 zoom that is my A200 walkaround lens. Today I go to the local old school photo shop where they are having a clearance sale on "stuff" and came away with a NOS Minolta 70D, which from what I can glean from first impressions is a helluva nice 35mm SLR and likely a keeper as the film backup/compliment for the A200. That doesn't count the Yashica Electro 35 GSN I found a yard sale, the Electro CC I found at a thrift store ($2.99) or the Asahi Pentax K1000 at another yard sale for $5. All told it comes to less than a hooker and a good bar bill but still, I clearly need to thin the herd. This would be a hint to have a look at the SA camera mart thread before I throw all this stuff int the bay.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2009 06:26
|
|
|
I'm thinking of getting a Pentax ME Super to replace my Pentax MX as my lug-around camera. Specifically, I like the addition of the auto exposure capability and the 1/2000 shutter over the MX(1/1000 max, 1/2000 would give me more flexibility with aperture in bright light). Does anyone here have an ME Super and can comment on it?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2009 16:54
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:How do you find out if a place uses a machine that makes a scan or wetprints? Because the few rolls of C41 I've taken in the last year (drop off booth development/CVS) have printed like garbage and like they were from over sharpened jpeg's Assume it's a scan unless you have proof otherwise - they're by far the most common these days.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2009 17:29
|
|
|
Just so I get this right, to push black and white film. I would take a roll of 400 tri x set my camera to 800, meter like normal, and then develop for 20% longer. If I set the camera to 1600 I would develop for 40% longer.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2009 06:04
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Just so I get this right, to push black and white film. I would take a roll of 400 tri x set my camera to 800, meter like normal, and then develop for 20% longer. If I set the camera to 1600 I would develop for 40% longer. Generally, yes. The Digital Truth site has a lot of times that you can use to start from for different ISO speeds, rather than trying to figure it out yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2009 06:29
|
|
|
HPL posted:Xtol is da shiznit, bitch. Never mind, they don't seem to make the 1L packs anymore. So... what kind of container do you use to mix up 5L's worth of liquid? I can't find anything with volume markings that big. CanuckBassist fucked around with this message at 22:09 on May 9, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2009 21:32
|
|
|
E: ooh, everything makes sense now. Sorry, nevermind!
value-brand cereal fucked around with this message at 22:42 on May 9, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2009 22:14
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:Never mind, they don't seem to make the 1L packs anymore. So... what kind of container do you use to mix up 5L's worth of liquid? I can't find anything with volume markings that big. I store my XTOL in Premier's 2 Gallon Tank with the matching floating lid. I don't think the markings on the side are accurate, so I use a graduated cylinder to measure out the correct amount of water.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2009 22:29
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:I store my XTOL in Premier's 2 Gallon Tank with the matching floating lid. I'll have to try to hunt down a local (  ) store that carries something that big.PS: I hope you're not adding the Xtol mix to 5L of water. Xtol + 5L > 5L!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2009 22:55
|
|
|
I mix the powder in a bucket then pour the solution into one litre containers right to the top to minimize the amount of air the unused stuff ever sees. I have one accordion container as my working container and refill it from the other containers when it gets empty. Five one litre containers are easier to store than one big jug too. If you're looking for supplies, get it from Henry's. Their shipping is only $10, which can cover the PST and then some on a larger order and you don't have to drive far since it's delivered. Leo's has great selection, but their prices are kind of crappy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2009 00:51
|
|
|
Electro 35 GSN pictures are in!    cross posted in the CC Sa mart filed under "Gnomad hawking his old stuff". I'm pretty impressed with the results. So then, just to illustrate my lack of restraint, at a yard sale I found a Canon AE1 program with a 28mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.8, and also a Quantaray 80-200 zoom which is shoddily contructed but relatively fast at f3.8, and a vivitar 3700 flash which may not be functional, The guy tells me $25. I don't have $25 on me. He tells me to take it and pay him next time in in the neighborhood. I do the proper thing and go to the bank and give the man his money. All finctions appear to be working, except for that flash, which is too bad as the flash tilts and swivels and has the DM/C module so it's likely dedicated to the camera. It's a good thing the local photo shop is having a sale and they have lightly outdated PlusX and Delta at $3 a roll or 10 for $20, I bought 10 each PlusX and Delta, cuz I have a lot of cameras to feed these days. I will rationalize this behavior as "fostering" unloved film gear until such time as I can find it a good home, so really dear, it's a public service, almost a calling. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2009 08:13
|
|
|
I can't tell what it is, but it feels like it's been run through the Photoshop paint daubs filter or whatever it's called. Does anyone else see it?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2009 08:22
|
|
|
Cryhavoc posted:I can't tell what it is, but it feels like it's been run through the Photoshop paint daubs filter or whatever it's called. Does anyone else see it? Either it's over-compressed or it has been run through too heavy of a noise reduction filter. In other news, I got a Pentax ME Super for dirt cheap. The film winding lever was all weird, but I fixed that easily. The mirror is cracked from the focusing screen set screw coming down too far, but it doesn't affect the view through the view finder at all. Upon removal of the top cover, I was a bit dismayed to find that the cover is made of plastic, not metal. Oh well. Overall, the ME Super doesn't have quite the super solid, heavy duty feel of the MX. It has a slightly different shutter sound too, less clunky sounding and a little less recoil. I found that with the MX, the loudness wasn't from the mirror slap, it was from the cloth shutter closing back up, believe it or not. The ME Super has a segmented metal shutter sort of like modern SLRs.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2009 09:21
|
|
|
Hey, do you know what the general quality of the Pentax manual focus lenses is like? I'm thinking of picking up a cheap 28 2.8 or 50 1.4, but i'm not really married to the system yet.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2009 09:30
|
|
|
I can't speak for the lenses but I used a Pentax and even though it could autofocus it had split prism manual focus, and the biggest brightest viewfinder I've seen, probably better than that of my Nikon F4. I was able to pull off a roll of perfectly-focused shots with a lovely kit zoom with that thing. So I wouldn't worry too much. If I were shopping around for an inexpensive MF system, Pentax would be on the list. edit: boy howdy I don't think that was at all what you were asking. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2009 09:58
|
|
|
So, I got my SQ-Ai in the mail, and once I figure out the ASA/exposure compensation dial on the film back (anyone have experience with this? The manual is kind of confusing and the pictures aren't good) I'll be ready to start shooting 120 again. I've got a few rolls of C-41 that came with the camera that I'll use to test the meter/other functionality, but I'd like to get in to shooting and developing my own B&W 120 film. From anyone who has experience doing it, any tips? I've seen it mentioned a couple of times that it's a little trickier to load it on the reel, and I'd be using more developing fluids, etc. (Was reading the guide on the first page of the thread, and this one.) Also, how much heavier is a stainless steel tank vs an equivalent-sized plastic one?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2009 15:43
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Also, how much heavier is a stainless steel tank vs an equivalent-sized plastic one? Not in any way that's important. I've done all my developing in the university darkroom with stainless steel so that's what I've actually bought. A good metric I've used to prevent agitation marks is whenever you're agitating, usually about 4 "turns" or agitations (flipping the container end over end) per 5 seconds. I never had agitation marks except when I messed up the chemicals or something like that.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2009 15:51
|
|
|
Brucie Banner posted:Not in any way that's important. I've done all my developing in the university darkroom with stainless steel so that's what I've actually bought. A good metric I've used to prevent agitation marks is whenever you're agitating, usually about 4 "turns" or agitations (flipping the container end over end) per 5 seconds. I never had agitation marks except when I messed up the chemicals or something like that. Sorry, I should have been more clear; probably moving later this year (flying) so if they weigh like 5 pounds or something I'd probably be better off getting plastic. Edit: (or just buying a cheap one when I get there)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2009 16:01
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Sorry, I should have been more clear; probably moving later this year (flying) so if they weigh like 5 pounds or something I'd probably be better off getting plastic. Oh, no, they're nowhere near that bad. I can't say for certain but I'm holding one right now and I'd estimate it's less than a pound, with lid and two 35mm reels inside. the 120 reel i have is even less metal.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2009 16:06
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:From anyone who has experience doing it, any tips? I've seen it mentioned a couple of times that it's a little trickier to load it on the reel, and I'd be using more developing fluids, etc. (Was reading the guide on the first page of the thread, and this one.) Also, how much heavier is a stainless steel tank vs an equivalent-sized plastic one? Get the AP tank. It comes with two reels and can do both 35mm and 120. I don't think the Paterson tanks even come with reels. The AP reels are nice. It's not that bad loading film onto a slightly wet reel. It's a wee tad stickier, but nothing show-stopping.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2009 16:18
|
|
|
Brucie Banner posted:Not in any way that's important. I've done all my developing in the university darkroom with stainless steel so that's what I've actually bought. A good metric I've used to prevent agitation marks is whenever you're agitating, usually about 4 "turns" or agitations (flipping the container end over end) per 5 seconds. I never had agitation marks except when I messed up the chemicals or something like that. I started off with constant inversions for 30 seconds, then 2 inversions every 30 seconds with a solid tap at the end to dislodge bubbles. I have now gone over to using Patterson reels that have a little agitator built in. It sticks out the top of the tank once the light-tight funnel is in, and you twiddle it to rotate the plastic reels.. I give it constant twiddling for 30 seconds, then 2 twiddles every 30 seconds. I get pretty much the same results. HPL posted:Get the AP tank. It comes with two reels and can do both 35mm and 120. I don't think the Paterson tanks even come with reels. The AP reels are nice. It's not that bad loading film onto a slightly wet reel. It's a wee tad stickier, but nothing show-stopping. My Patterson Universal Tank came with one reel, I bought a second. I can do two 35mm rolls or 1 120 roll. I think it will do other sizes that I never use.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2009 14:29
|
|
|
Cryhavoc posted:Hey, do you know what the general quality of the Pentax manual focus lenses is like? I'm thinking of picking up a cheap 28 2.8 or 50 1.4, but i'm not really married to the system yet. They're awesome, basically you're looking at 3 series of Pentax manual lenses(not including screwmount), the K, M, and A series, the K are the oldest, and largest, and generally considered the best quality, the M series was redesigned to be very compact, some people say at the expense of image quality, though I use mostly M-series glass and its no slouch. The A-series is just the M lenses with the contacts for aperture control, useful if you're using a more modern film or a digital body (though the K and M lenses will still work, albeit in full manual only). Pentax made some incredible manual focus lenses, I personally have the m28/2.8 and its practically a pancake lens its so small, very sharp too, I have a screwmount 50/1.4 and an a50/1.7, the 1.7 is a little sharper(also 25 years newer) but the 1.4 is a magical lens truly. Buy any Pentax glass you can and you'll be happy.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2009 15:03
|
|
|
I recently switched to Patterson tanks and reels from crappier other brands of plastic tanks. The Patterson's are great. The reels don't get gummed up as quickly and the little twist agitator thing is great. They each came with 1 reel and I bought a 2nd reel for each one. The reels expand so that you can do 1 roll of medium format. You end up using a bit more chemistry than you would with a steel tank (20oz for 2 rolls vs 16oz for 2 rolls) but it's not a big deal. Plus it's easier to measure out chemicals for things that are 1+9 (2oz), 1+19 (1oz), or 1+7 (2.5oz). That would be my developer, stop bath, and hypo wash respectively.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2009 18:57
|
|
|
johnasavoia posted:They're awesome, basically you're looking at 3 series of Pentax manual lenses(not including screwmount), the K, M, and A series, the K are the oldest, and largest, and generally considered the best quality, the M series was redesigned to be very compact, some people say at the expense of image quality, though I use mostly M-series glass and its no slouch. The A-series is just the M lenses with the contacts for aperture control, useful if you're using a more modern film or a digital body (though the K and M lenses will still work, albeit in full manual only). Pentax made some incredible manual focus lenses, I personally have the m28/2.8 and its practically a pancake lens its so small, very sharp too, I have a screwmount 50/1.4 and an a50/1.7, the 1.7 is a little sharper(also 25 years newer) but the 1.4 is a magical lens truly. Buy any Pentax glass you can and you'll be happy. Hey, thanks a bunch, that's pretty much exactly the info I was after. Now I just need to not be so broke. On an unrelated note, what can I do to stop little droplets of water drying on my film? Run it between my fingers when I take it out of the reel? Can you clean film after it's dry?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2009 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
You can clean film after it's dry. The best approach is to avoid the spots in the first place. After you wash the film, dunk the reels in some photo-flo solution. It only takes a few drops of the stuff in a tank of water. If you don't have any photo-flo handy, you can use distilled water which is less likely to leave junk on your film.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2009 21:37
|
|